11/1/16

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"
Micah - Judgment Now, Blessings Later (6:1-7:20)INTRODUCTION
1. This is the third of three lessons in our survey of the book of
Micah...
a. Micah was a prophet of God, a contemporary of Isaiah (ca. 735-700
B.C.)
b. His prophecies were directed to both Israel and Judah, though
mostly to the latter
c. His general theme: "Present Judgment, Future Blessings"
2. In his first message...
a. He proclaimed "The Coming Judgment And Promised Restoration"
b. In which he described:
1) The judgment pronounced upon Israel and Judah - Mic 1:2-16
2) The reasons for the coming judgment - Mic 2:1-11
3) The promise of the restoration of a remnant - Mic 2:12-13
3. In his second message...
a. He proclaimed "God's Condemnation of Israel, And The Future Hope"
b. In which he described:
1) God's condemnation of Israel's civil and religious leaders
- Mic 3:1-12
2) The future exaltation of Zion and Messianic hope - Mic 4:1-5:15
4. In his third and final message, Micah's message is "God's Indictment
of Israel, With A Promise Of Forgiveness And Restoration" - Mic 6:1-7:20
[Similar to what we saw in Hosea, the prophet Micah presents the Lord's
complaint as though He were taking Israel to court...]
I. THE LORD'S CONTROVERSY WITH ISRAELA. GOD'S COMPLAINT...
1. The people called to present their case against God, as He has
a complaint against them - Mic 6:1-2
2. How has the Lord wearied them? Testify against Him! - Mic 6:3
3. Did He not redeem them from Egyptian bondage with the aid of
His servants Moses, Aaron, and Miriam? - Mic 6:4
4. Remember how He even had Balaam counter the counsel of Balak
- Mic 6:5B. WHAT THE LORD REQUIRED OF THEM...
1. What must they offer for their sins? - Mic 6:6-7
2. What God wanted was for them to do justly, love mercy, and
walk humbly before Him - Mic 6:8C. THE PUNISHMENT FOR ISRAEL'S INJUSTICE...
1. Justified, for they were full of dishonesty and violence - Mic 6:9-12
2. Judgment is coming in the form of desolation, for they hold on
to the idolatry of Omri and works of Ahab - Mic 6:13-16
[Once again, for the third time, Micah has foretold of the judgment to
come. As before, he does not close without offering a hope for
blessings in the future...]
II. A LAMENT FOLLOWED BY A PROMISE OF RESTORATIONA. PERHAPS SPEAKING FOR THE FAITHFUL REMNANT, MICAH LAMENTS...
1. His sorrow because the faithful man had perished - Mic 7:1-4
2. Things are so bad, only the Lord can be trusted - Mic 7:5-7B. A CONFESSION OF SIN, WITH COMFORT IN WHAT THE LORD WILL BRING...
1. His enemy is not to rejoice over him - Mic 7:8-10a
a. For though he may fall, he will arise; the Lord will be a
light to him
b. He is willing to bear the indignation of the Lord, for he
has sinned; he knows also that the Lord will eventually
plead his case and execute justice for him
2. He takes comfort in the future restoration of Zion - Mic 7:
10b-13
a. Though first to be trampled down like mire in the streets
b. When restored, all will come to her (a messianic reference
akin to Mic 4:1-2?)
c. But first there will be desolation (cf. the destruction of
the city by Babylon)
C. A CLOSING PRAYER, WITH PRAISE TO GOD...
1. A prayer for God's protection, to shepherd them as in days
gone by - Mic 7:14
2. God answer: "I will show them marvelous things" - Mic 7:15
3. Micah's song of praise - Mic 7:16-20
a. The nations shall be made afraid when they see what the
Lord has done
b. Who is a God like Jehovah?
1) Who pardons iniquity
2) Who passes over the transgressions of the remnant of His
heritage
3) Who does not retain anger forever, for He delights in
mercy
4) Who will again have compassion, subdue their sins, and
cast their sins away
5) Who will give truth and mercy to Jacob and Abraham
(i.e., their descendants) as He has sworn from days of
old (cf. Gen 12:2-3)
CONCLUSION
1. Thus Micah ends his book like he ended each of his three messages:
offering hope concerning the future for the people of Israel
2. In our previous lesson we noted how these promises concerning a
glorious future to a great extent were fulfilled "in the latter
days", beginning with the coming of our Lord
a. Certainly the restoration and rebuilding of temple following
Babylonian captivity was a partial fulfillment
b. But even that was just a glimpse of what Jesus Christ would offer
in His spiritual kingdom, which we now enjoy by being in Him
3. From Micah, we can learn a lot about...
a. The nature of God - cf. Mic 7:18-20
b. How God would have us live - cf. Mic 6:6-8
4. We also can have our faith strengthened by observing those
prophecies which have been fulfilled...
a. Such as the birthplace of the Messiah - Mic 5:2
b. Such as the establishment of the Lord's house - Mic 4:1-2
So while Micah may have been sent first to the nation of Israel, let's
not forget what Peter said concerning the Old Testament prophets...
"To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they
were ministering the things which now have been reported to you
through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy
Spirit sent from heaven; things which angels desire to look into."
(1Pe 1:12)
Yes, when the prophets like Micah foretold of the "the glories that
would follow", they were serving us who would be later be in the
kingdom of God. Do we appreciate how blessed we are? If so, then let's
also do what God requires of us, as expressed in Micah's own words:
"to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God"
(Mic 6:8)

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"
Micah - Judgment Now, Blessings Later (3:1-5:15)INTRODUCTION
1. In our previous lesson on the book of Micah...
a. We briefly considered some background material
1) Concerning Micah, the man
a) His name means "Who is like Jehovah?"
b) He was from Moresheth-Gath, 20-25 miles SW of Jerusalem
c) A contemporary of Isaiah
d) A prophet of the poor and downtrodden
2) Concerning Micah, the book
a) The prophecies occurred around 735-700 B.C.
b) They were directed toward both Israel and Judah
c) The general theme appears to be "Present Judgment, Future
Blessings"
b. We briefly considered the first of three messages in the book
1) Each message begins with "Hear..." - Mic 1:2; 3:1; 6:1
2) The first message proclaimed "The Coming Judgment And Promised
Restoration", as it described:
a) The judgment pronounced upon Israel and Judah - Mic 1:2-16
b) The reasons for the coming judgment - Mic 2:1-11
c) The promise of the restoration of a remnant - Mic 2:12-13
2. In this lesson, we shall consider Micah's second message...
a. As presented in Mic 3:1-5:15
b. Which follows a similar theme as in the previous message:
1) God's condemnation of Israel
2) With a glimpse of the future hope
[This second message has much more to say about the future hope,
especially regarding the Messiah. But it begins with...]
I. GOD'S CONDEMNATION OF ISRAEL'S LEADERSA. INDICTMENT OF ISRAEL'S CIVIL LEADERS...
1. The outrageous conduct of the rulers - Mic 3:1-3
a. They hate good and love evil
b. They consume the people (i.e., oppress them)
2. The judgment to come upon them - Mic 3:4
a. They will cry to the Lord, but He will not hear them
b. He will hide His face from them
B. INDICTMENT OF ISRAEL'S RELIGIOUS LEADERS...
1. The judgment to come upon the false prophets - Mic 3:5-7
a. Because they lead God's people astray
b. They shall have no vision, they shall be made ashamed
2. Micah's own ministry, in contrast to that of the false
prophets - Mic 3:8
a. He is full of the power of the Spirit, and of justice and
might
b. He declares the transgression and sin of Israel
C. INDICTMENT OF ISRAEL'S LEADERS RENEWED...
1. Addressing once again the rulers of Israel, their sins are
categorized - Mic 3:9-11
a. They abhor justice and pervert equity (fairness)
b. They build up Jerusalem with bloodshed and iniquity
c. Whether judges, priests, or prophets, they do it only for
the money, belying their claim to trust in the Lord
2. The judgment to come upon Israel because of them - Mic 3:12
a. Zion shall be plowed like a field
b. Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins
[This prophecy of Micah was fulfilled when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem
in 586 B. C. (cf. 2Ch 36:17-21). But his message is not finished; as
ominous as it was in proclaiming the coming judgment, he now continues
with a glimpse into the future...]
II. THE FUTURE EXALTATION OF ZION AND MESSIANIC HOPEA. THE GLORY TO COME IN "THE LATTER DAYS"...
1. What will happen "in the latter days"
a. The "mountain of the Lord's house" will be established, and
many people will want to go it - Mic 4:1-2
b. They will want to learn of God's ways, and the word of the
Lord will go forth from Jerusalem - Mic 4:2
c. The Lord will judge the nations, and there will be peace
- Mic 4:3
d. Everyone will be content, walking in the name of the Lord
forever - Mic 4:4-5
-- Isaiah had a similar prophecy - Isa 2:1-4
2. What is the fulfillment of this prophecy?
a. Some believe it is all yet to come (e.g., premillenialists)
b. Some believe it is all past (e.g., some amillenialists)
c. I am inclined to believe there are past, present, and
future elements
1) It began in Jerusalem with the preaching of the gospel
on Pentecost
a) For Peter identifies the events of that day as
beginning the fulfillment of what would occur in the
"last days" - cf. Joel 2:28-32; Ac 2:16-17
b) For Jesus said the gospel would go forth from
Jerusalem as prophesied - Lk 24:46-47; cf. Mic 4:2;
Isa 2:3
2) It continues as people respond to the gospel that
originated from Jerusalem
a) Such people "have come to Mount Zion" - He 12:22-24;
cf. Mic 4:2
b) They learn the ways of the Lord - Ep 4:20-24; cf.
Mic 4:2
3) The "judging among many people" may be both present and
future
a) The book of Revelation reveals the Lord as judging
both in the present and in the future - cf. Re 1:5;
2:26-27; 17:14; 20:11-15
b) Peter viewed some of Isaiah's prophecies as yet to be
fulfilled - 2Pe 3:13; cf. Isa 65:17-19; 66:22
c) Therefore Mic 4:3-5 may find some of its fulfillment
in the eternal destiny of the redeemed, as part of
the "New Jerusalem" of the "new heaven and new earth"
described in Re 21-22
3. As Micah continues, he describes what will occur "in that day"
- Mic 4:6-8
a. The Lord will assemble a remnant of those whom He afflicted
- cf. Ro 11:5
b. He will reign over them forever - cf. Lk 1:30-33
-- I understand that the fulfillment of this prophecy began
with the first coming of Christ, and that the church is a
spiritual kingdom in which the "former dominion" of Israel
has been restored and given to Jesus who reigns from heaven
- cf. Mt 28:18; Ac 1:6-8; 2:30-36; Re 1:5; 2:26-27; 3:21B. THE DISTRESS AND CAPTIVITY BEFORE RESTORATION...
1. The "Now" of Mic 4:9 suggests that Micah has returned from his
glimpse of the future hope to what will occur in the immediate
present
2. Their judgment will involve distress like a woman in labor, as
they will be delivered to Babylon, from which they will also
be redeemed - Mic 4:9-10
3. Even "now", many nations (e.g., Assyria) have come up against
them - Mic 4:11-5:1
a. Who seek to defile Zion, whom God will use to break them
into many pieces
b. Yet the daughter of Zion (Israel) shall be humbled also
- cf. Mic 5:1C. THE COMING MESSIAH...
1. Here we find the prophecy of the Messiah's birthplace-Mic 5:2;

cf. Mt 2:1-6
a. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah
b. He would become the ruler of Israel - cf. Isa 9:6-7; Lk 1:30-33
c. His "goings forth have been from old, from everlasting"
- cf. Jn 1:1-3
2. The Messiah will lead His people in peace - Mic 5:3-5a
a. Though first they must be given up for a short time
(Babylonian captivity)
b. Then a remnant shall return, whom the Ruler shall feed in
the strength of the Lord
D. FURTHER JUDGMENT ON ISRAEL AND HER ENEMIES...
1. Some take this section to be Messianic
2. I tend to take it as pertaining to Micah's day and those that
followed shortly after...
a. The Assyrian threat would prove to be no real threat (for
Judah - Mic 5:5b-6; cf. Isa 36-37
b. When the remnant is dispersed (as a result of Babylonian
captivity), they shall be a lion among flocks of sheep
- Mic 5:7-9 (e.g., Daniel, Esther?)
c. God would cut off her false strengths (such as horses and
chariots, cf. Isa 31:1) and her idolatry - Mic 5:10-15CONCLUSION
1. With the recurrent theme in his messages ("Present Judgment, Future
Blessings"), Micah's purpose appears to be two-fold...
a. To warn the people, that they may repent as necessary
b. To encourage the people, that their hope for the future might
help them to endure the hard times to come
2. A similar two-fold message is found in the New Testament as well...
a. Warnings to persevere, lest we fall away - e.g., He 4:1,11
b. Promises to encourage us for whatever lies ahead - e.g., 2Pe 3:
13-14
3. Today, we have an advantage over the Israelites of Micah's day...
a. We have already seen much of his prophecy fulfilled with the
first coming of the Messiah
b. As Peter wrote, "we also have the prophetic word made more sure"
- 2Pe 1:19
c. Made more sure by virtue of its fulfillment, it can serve to
comfort us and strengthen our hope regarding any future promise
of God - cf. Ro 15:4
-- If God kept His promise concerning the first coming of His
Messiah, we can have confidence He will keep His promise
concerning His return!
Perhaps that is why Peter went on to say concerning "the prophetic
word" (e.g., The Minor Prophets)...
"which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts"
(2Pe 1:19)
By careful study and consideration of the prophets, both in the Old
Testament and New Testament, our hope for the future is strengthened!

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"
Micah - Judgment Now, Blessings Later (1:1-2:13)INTRODUCTION
1. The eighth century (800-700 B.C.) was filled with prophetic
activity...
a. Starting with Jonah, who prophesied to the city of Nineveh (790
B.C.)
b. Continuing with prophets sent primarily to the northern kingdom
of Israel
1) Amos (755 B.C.)
2) Hosea (750-725 B.C.)
c. The southern kingdom of Judah was also the recipient of God's
prophets
1) Isaiah (740-700 B.C.)
2) Micah (735-700 B.C.)
2. In our study of "The Minor Prophets"...
a. We have looked at the works of Jonah, Amos, and Hosea
b. We now come to the works of Micah, the last prophet of the eighth
century B.C.
[Before we take a look at the messages of Micah as recorded in his
book, it may be helpful to first look at some...]
I. BACKGROUND MATERIALA. MICAH - THE MAN...
1. His name means "Who is like Jehovah?" - cf. Mic 7:18
2. His home was Moresheth-Gath - Mic 1:1,14
a. In the lowlands of Judah, near Philistia
b. About 20-25 miles southwest of Jerusalem
3. Nothing is known of his occupation prior to becoming God's
prophet
4. Characterization
a. "He was the prophet of the poor and downtrodden." (Homer
Hailey)
b. "He had Amos' passion for justice and Hosea's heart for
love." (J.M.P. Smith)
c. Comparing Micah to his contemporary Isaiah (as suggested by
Hailey)
1) Micah was a man of the fields, Isaiah was of the city
2) Micah took little interest in politics, giving himself
to the concern over spiritual and moral problems; Isaiah
was in close contact with world affairs, the associate
of kings and princes
3) Both Micah and Isaiah...
a) Saw God as the infinite Ruler of nations and men
b) Recognized the absolute holiness and majesty of God
c) Stressed that violating principles of God's divine
sovereignty and holiness would bring judgment and
doom
B. MICAH - THE BOOK...
1. The date: 735-700 B.C.
a. During the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of
Judah - Mic 1:1
b. Just as the northern kingdom of Israel was falling under
Assyria's attack
2. The message: "Present Judgment, Future Blessings"
a. Judgment is coming because of Israel's unfaithfulness to
God
b. Blessings will come because of God's faithfulness to Israel
1) Cf. the promise God made to Abraham - Gen 22:18
2) God would fulfill in the person of Jesus Christ - cf.
Ac 3:24-26
3. A brief outline: The book appears to contain three messages
or oracles, all beginning with the word "Hear"; therefore the
book can be divided as follows:
a. The coming judgment, with a promise of restoration - Mic 1:
1-2:13
b. God's condemnation of Israel, with a glimpse of the future
hope - Mic 3:1-5:15
c. God's indictment of Israel, with a plea for repentance and
promise of forgiveness - Mic 6:1-7:20
[In the remaining part of this lesson, let's take look at Micah's first
message...]
II. THE COMING JUDGMENT AND PROMISED RESTORATION (1:1-2:13)A. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON ISRAEL AND JUDAH...
1. Micah's message is for both Samaria (Israel) and Jerusalem
(Judah) - Mic 1:1
2. The Lord announces His coming judgment - Mic 1:2-5
3. The destruction of Samaria (representing the northern kingdom
of Israel) - Mic 1:6-7
4. Micah's mourning - Mic 1:8-16
a. For the judgment has reached even Judah and Jerusalem
b. His lament involves making a play on words involving the
names of cities; for example...
1) "Tell it not in Gath" (Gath is similar to the Hebrew
word for "tell")
2) "Weep not at all in Beth Aphrah, Roll yourself in the
dust" (Beth Aphrah means "house of dust")
3) "Pass by in naked shame, you inhabitant of Shaphir"
(Shaphir means "fair, beautiful, pleasant")
4) "The inhabitant of Zaanan does not go out" (Zaanan means
"come out")
5) "Beth Ezel mourns; its place to stand is taken away
from you" (Beth Ezel can be paraphrased as "nearby
house")
c. As revealed in verse 16, their judgment will involve
captivity
B. REASONS FOR THE INEVITABLE JUDGMENT...
1. The arrogance and violence of the nobles - Mic 2:1-5
a. For coveting fields and taking them by violence
b. So it will happen to them
2. For rejecting true prophets, and accepting false ones - Mic 2:6-11
a. They tell the prophets of God not to speak of God's words
b. They abuse the people of God
c. Destruction is coming, because they are defiled and accept
false prophets
C. RESTORATION PROMISED...
1. It will involve God assembling a remnant - Mic 2:12
2. God will lead them like a flock of sheep, with a king at their
head - Mic 2:12-13CONCLUSION
1. Later, Micah will tell us more about the ultimate fulfillment of
that restoration, and from where that "king" shall arise who shall
lead God's flock! - cf. Mic 5:2-5
2. But for now we have seen that Micah certainly follows the pattern of
God's prophets at that time...
a. Proclaiming the coming judgment, which would involve captivity
b. Providing the basis for such judgment, describing the nature of
their sins and departure from God
c. Promising that God would one day restore the good fortunes of
Israel, but requiring repentance and involving a "remnant"
3. How sad that many in Israel and Judah did not heed the words of such
men like Micah, Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah...
a. But are we heeding God's spokesmen for today?
b. Such as His apostles Peter and Paul, and of course, His Son Jesus
Christ?
We would do well to remember the preaching of Micah as we read in the
New Testament...
"For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we
have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the word spoken
through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and
disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape if
we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first
spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who
heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and
wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit
according to His own will. (He 2:1-4)
Israel as a nation failed to heed the message sent to them; are we
heeding the message for us today?

God, Prophecy, and Miraculous Knowledge

The
honest-hearted person who comes to recognize God’s existence and
contemplates His marvelous nature cannot help but stand in awe of His
omniscience. As the psalmist professed,

O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down
and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my
path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there
is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, You know it altogether….
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it.
Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your
presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in
hell [sheol], behold, You are there (139:1-4,6-8).

The Bible declares that God “knows the secrets of the heart” (Psalm
44:21), that His eyes “are in every place” (Proverbs 15:3), and that
“His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5). Simply put, God “knows
all things” (1 John 3:20). He has perfect knowledge of the past, the
present, and even the future. Job was right to ask the rhetorical
question, “Can anyone teach God knowledge?” (21:22).

God’s Omniscience and the Divine Inspiration of the Bible

God’s omniscience and proof that the Bible is the Word of God is
inextricably woven together. The main, overarching reason that the Bible
can be demonstrated to be of divine origin is because the writers were
correct in everything they wrote—about the past, the present, and the
future. Such a feat is humanly impossible. “With God,” however, “all
things are possible” (Mark 10:27). An omniscient, omnipotent God could
produce written revelation for His human creation that was flawless in
its original production. He could guide uneducated men to write about
events that occurred thousands of years before their time with complete
accuracy. He could “move” (otherwise) ordinary men (2 Peter 1:20-21) to
write flawlessly about any number of contemporary people, places, and
things. He could even guide men to write about future events with
perfect accuracy. He could—and He did.
Mankind can reasonably come to the conclusion that mere human
beings did not pen Scripture because human beings are not omniscient.
An uninspired person cannot, for example, foretell the future. Yet the
inspired Bible writers did just that—time and again (e.g., Ezekiel
26:1-14,19-21; see www.apologeticspress.org for more information). Is it
not logical, then, to conclude that the omniscient Ruler of the
Universe gave us the Bible? Interestingly, though the atheist does not
accept the Bible as “God-breathed,” even he understands that if the
Bible writers predicted the future accurately, then a supernatural
agent must be responsible for the production of Scripture (see Butt and
Barker, 2009, pp. 50-51).

Is There Another Possibility?

Some might surmise that a Bible writer practicing pagan divination
could also have accurately recorded what would happen in the distant
future (in Tyre, Babylon, Jerusalem, etc.) because Satan or some wicked
spirit-being revealed the information to him. Such a conclusion,
however, is unjustifiable for a number of reasons:

First, the prophets condemned all sorts of witchcraft, including
divination and soothsaying (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Jeremiah 27:9-29:9).
Thus, they would be condemning themselves if they were actually diviners
and soothsayers.

Second, since God, by His very definition, is the only omniscient,
omnipotent Being (cf. 1 John 4:4), neither the created and fallen devil
nor any other non-eternal spirit-being (Colossians 1:16; 2 Peter 2:4)
can choose to know whatever he wants. He may be able to acquire
knowledge quickly from other beings or from personal experience, but
ultimately, wicked spirit-beings can only have knowledge of what the
Creator allows them to know (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:11). If, for example, a
wicked spirit-being knew of future events, it would be due to the
omniscient Ruler of the heaven and Earth granting him such knowledge for
His own purposes. “Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass, when the
Lord has not commanded it?” (Lamentations 3:37). Simply put, no one
accurately foretells the future unless God informs him of it. [NOTE:
Diviners may occasionally and vaguely predict something that comes to
pass, but such guesswork or weathermen-like predictions are far from the
revealed, supernatural foreknowledge of God, which was revealed during
Bible times to His true spokesmen.]

Third, God revealed throughout Scripture that those who accurately foretell the future are genuine
prophets of God. Jeremiah wrote: “When the word of the prophet comes to
pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the Lord has truly sent”
(28:9). On the other hand, those who prophesy things that do not come to
pass, “the Lord has not sent;” “they prophesy falsely” (Jeremiah 28:15;
29:8-9). “‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’
When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not
happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken;
the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of
him” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). If non-God-inspired diviners could actually
have foretold the future by the power of some wicked spirit-being, then
how could the honest-hearted person ever know for sure what and who to believe and obey?
Concluding that pagan diviners have been given power by wicked
spirit-beings to flawlessly foretell the future contradicts what the
true, inspired prophets of God taught, and prevents truth-seekers from
being able to know truth.

Conclusion

God Almighty is the only omniscient, omnipotent Being. Only He knows
everything. Ultimately, He alone knows the future—the revelation of such
Divine thoughts being one of the chief ways man has logically concluded
that a particular message was actually God-inspired. It seems quite
dangerous to conclude that fallen spirit-beings know the future and have
revealed such miraculous information to wicked diviners. Yes,
uninspired fortunetellers have doubtlessly been tempted and influenced
throughout the ages by powerful forces of darkness, but such beings are
non-omniscient “deceiving spirits” (1 Timothy 4:1), who take after their
“father, the devil,” “a liar” in whom “there is no truth” (John 8:44).

Dragonfly Flight and the Designer

More
proof of the existence of the Master Designer comes from research
conducted by Z. Jane Wang, professor of theoretical and applied
mechanics at Cornell University (Gold, 2006). Centering on flying
systems and fluid dynamics, Dr. Wang notes that the best way to learn
about flight is by first looking at what happens naturally. Interesting. In order for the complex human mind to comprehend the principles of flight, that mind must focus on the natural order—the Creation. So mind must learn from that which, according to evolutionists, came into being and developed without any mind. Intelligence is dependent on non-intelligence. Who can believe it?
Reporting her findings at the annual meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Wang observed that her
research calls into question the conventional wisdom that ascribes to
airplanes (human inventions) more flight efficiency than the flying
creatures of the natural realm. Dragonflies, for example, are “a marvel
of engineering” (Gold, 2006). “Marvel of engineering”—without an
Engineer? So claims the evolutionist—despite the irrationality of such a
conclusion.
Indeed, the dragonfly possesses four wings, instead of the standard
two, enabling it to dash forward at speeds approaching 60 kph. Its
unusual pitching stroke allows this amazing insect to hover and even
shift into reverse. According to Wang: “Dragonflies have a very odd
stroke. It’s an up-and-down stroke instead of a back-and-forth
stroke.... Dragonflies are one of the most maneuverable insects, so if
they’re doing that they’re probably doing it for a reason” (Gold, 2006, emp. added). “For a reason”? But doesn’t “a reason” imply a reasonable mind behind the reason that thinks and assigns a logical rationale to specific phenomena?
The more scientists study dragonflies the more they are impressed with
these “marvels of flight engineering” (“How Do Things...,” n.d.). They
appear to twist their wings on the downward stroke, creating a whirlwind
of air that flows across the wings, facilitating the lift that keeps
them flying. Even more amazing, one Australian scientist, Akiko
Mizu­tani, of the Centre for Visual Science at the Australian National
University, has studied dragonflies at length in the past few years. She
observes that, while chasing its prey, dragonflies “shadow their
enemies in complex manoeuvres that military fighter pilots can only
dream of. Their tricks create the visual illusion that they’re not moving”
(as quoted in “How Stealthy...,” 2003, 2398:26, emp. added). In fact,
according to Dr. Javaan Chahl, the quick aerial movements allow the
dragonfly to disguise itself as a motionless object
(“Military Looks to Mimic...,” 2003, emp. added). These insights are not
lost on the military establishment. They recognize the incredible
implications for technological development—from the ability of fighter
aircraft to approach the enemy undetected, to greater maneuverability,
to enhanced helicopter logistics. Indeed, “scientists believe the
insect’s flight control could have applications in new planes and
helicopters” (2003). Is it any wonder that one of the very first
helicopters produced was named “Dragonfly” (“Sikorsky...,” 2003)? If no
one considers the helicopter as the product of time and chance, why
would any reasonable person believe that the insect to which scientists
are looking for an understanding of principles of flight evolved from
mindless, mechanistic forces of nature?
If the human mind, with all of its complexity and ingenious design, is
necessary to engineer flight capability (e.g., airplanes), what must be
said for the Mind behind the human mind? If scores of intelligent
scientists must expend vast amounts of time, energy, intention,
deliberation, knowledge, and thought in order to discover the secrets of
the “efficient motions” of the dragonfly, what must have been required
to create that dragonfly in the first place? Mindless, non-intelligent,
unconscious, non-purposive “evolutionary forces”? Ridiculous! Time and
chance do not and cannot account for
the amazing design found in insects like the dragonfly. The only
logical, plausible explanation is that dragonflies were designed by the
God of the Bible, and they testify to His wisdom: “You are worthy, O
Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things,
and by Your will they exist and were created” (Revelation 4:11).

Did Jesus Command Infant Baptism?

Some suggest that because Jesus welcomed children (Luke 18:15 indicates
they were infants), and said of them, “of such is the kingdom of God”
(Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17), infants should be
baptized just as adults are baptized.
Christ told the disciples not to shun children, because children
possess a deep humility that followers of Christ should develop (see
Deaver, 1985, p. 9). Adults must receive the Gospel with the same
humility and trust that characterize little children (Mark 10:15; see
Hendriksen, 1975, p. 383), and there are important things we should
learn from the young (see 1 Timothy 4:12). In this instance, Jesus
certainly expressed appreciation and affection for infants. But what
about baptism?
Jesus did not command His disciples to baptize the children—whoever
brought the children did not bring them for the purpose of having them
baptized (Matthew 19:13). Furthermore, while we have record of Christ’s
disciples baptizing adults (John 3:22; 4:1-2; see Lyons,
2003), we have no record of them baptizing children. In fact, the
disciples shunned the children at first, possibly because the disciples
thought that the children “interfered” with one of the main objectives
of Christ’s ministry: to baptize penitent adults. If those who brought
the children did not intend for the children to be baptized, why did
they bring them?
First, it is possible that those who brought the children sought a
medical benefit for their children, though the text does not so imply.
Many people brought their children to Jesus to have them healed of
diseases. Some parents incorporate Christianity into the rearing of
their children only when their children are afflicted with terrible
illness (of course, parents should at all times encourage their children
to learn about Christ and to live according to His precepts [see
Proverbs 22:6; Henry, 1706, 1:271]).
Second, it is possible that those who brought the children perceived
some religious, spiritual, or supernatural benefit available only in the
presence of Jesus. However, people who benefited from Christ’s personal
presence did so by hearing and applying His message, or by being healed
of diseases. By taking the children into His arms, Jesus did not
promote or endorse the idea that anything “mystical” happened to people
who simply entered His presence.
Before baptism, one must know God (2 Thessalonians 1:8; see Coffman,
1975, p. 186). If one is baptized as an infant, he is baptized without
believing that Christ is the Son of God, without repentance, and without
confession. There is no New Testament record of the administration of
baptism without belief, repentance, and confession (Mark 16:15-16; Acts
17:30; Romans 10:10; see Coffman, 1984, p. 296). Baptism is for
forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Infants have no sins, so they do not
need to have sins remitted. Also, each account of baptism in the New
Testament shows that people who were baptized had the option of refusing
baptism, but infants do not have that capability.
On December 18, 1964, the New York Times reported that some
Anglican Church officials were renouncing infant baptism because,
according to Richard A. Vick, preacher for the St. Paul’s
Westcliff-on-Sea church, performing infant baptism is “denying adults
the privilege of believer’s baptism. We are denying something essential
to salvation. [Infant baptism] isn’t agreeable to the word of God”
(“More of Clergy...,” 1964).
Young children should be “brought to Christ” today, i.e., reared in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), though they cannot
be scripturally baptized. The responsibility of bringing children to
Christ rests on the shoulders of mature Christians.

What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the "Son of God"?

by

Brad Bromling, D.Min.

Q.
What does it mean to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”?

A.

The New Testament employs a variety of terms in its effort to define
the personal identity of Jesus. Strictly speaking, His name simply is
Jesus (meaning “Yahweh is salvation”). Recognition of His messiahship
quickly led His followers to call Him Christ (christos is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Messiah), Christ Jesus, and the more common Jesus Christ. In addition, He also is called:

Lord—an Old Testament designation for God, as well as a term of respect like “Sir”;

Son of Man—the designation Jesus most often applied to Himself
that can indicate “a human,” or point to a mysterious heavenly figure
(Daniel 7:13);

Son of David—an indicator of messianic lineage; and

“I AM”—an apparent echo of the unutterable divine name (Exodus 3:14).

All of these titles make exalted claims for the Man from Galilee. For many Christians, though, Son of God
is the most familiar term used to identify Jesus. This is
understandable in light of passages like 1 John 4:15: “Whoever confesses
that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God,” and
John 20:30-31: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of
His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written
that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
believing you may have life in His name.” There is power in the
confession that Jesus is the “Son of God,” but what does it mean?
The earliest Christians were Jews who were familiar with at least two
distinct applications of the term “son of God.” In the first place, the
term had a general application to all Israelites. When their ancestors
were held in Egyptian bondage, Moses was sent to Pharaoh with these
words: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to
you, let My son go that he may serve Me” (Exodus 4:22-23; see also Hosea
11:1). Through the years, Yahweh loved, protected, comforted, and
chastened Israel, just as a loving parent would nurture and discipline
children (Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 66:13; et al.).
The second usage was more specific. Historically, the term had a royal
connotation for many nations of the Ancient Near East. It was
commonplace for Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Roman rulers to be
called “son of God” (Fossum, 1992, pp. 128-137). These kings even were
deified and surrounded by legends about their miraculous births—often
including stories of gods copulating with humans (Sanders, 1993, pp.
243-245). This royal connotation also was known in Israel, although they
did not deify their kings (O’Collins, 1995, p. 117).
When the New Testament writers referred to Jesus as “Son of God,” they
sometimes employed the term in ways that echoed these two common uses.
After those who threatened the life of the child Jesus died, Joseph was
given instructions in a dream to return from Egypt to his homeland. When
Matthew reported this event, he said it fulfilled Hosea 11:1: “When
Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (see
Matthew 2:15). In other words, Jesus was God’s Son as an Israelite, and
in a real sense, the True Israelite.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ ministry began with a pronouncement
from heaven: “This is my beloved Son...” (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11). The
same is heard at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5). In the Gospel of
John, the baptizer testified that Jesus “ranks ahead of ” him, and by
virtue of the Spirit’s descending upon Jesus, he testified that Jesus is
the “Son of God” (John 1:30, NRSV). These
references are reminiscent of the decree of royal sonship (Psalm 2:6-7;
see also Luke 1:32-33). When the Jewish leaders put Jesus on trial, they
asked: “Are you the Son of God, then?” Satisfied with His answer, they
told Pilate Jesus was claiming to be “a king” (Luke 22:70; 23:2). As
Jesus died on the cross, the only accusation assigned to Him was, “This
is the king of the Jews” (Luke 23:38). According to Paul and the writer
of Hebrews, this regal distinction was especially manifest after Jesus
was raised from the dead (Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4; Hebrews 1:5).
While Jesus’ identity certainly included these then-prevailing ideas of
sonship, it is obvious they do not exhaust the significance of the term
for Him. Over and again, Jesus referred to God as His Father (Matthew
7:21; 10:32; 11:27, et al.). Since the Jews also saw themselves as sons
and daughters of God, this should not have bothered them. But it did
bother them, precisely because they perceived Jesus to be making a
unique—and seemingly blasphemous—claim of sonship.
This uniqueness reached its zenith when Jesus addressed God as “Abba,
Father” in prayer (Mark 14:36). “Abba” was the word a Jewish child used
to refer to his or her “original person of reference” (i.e., mother or
father). This bespoke an “unheard-of closeness” between Jesus and God
(Moltmann, 1993, p. 142). Jesus demonstrated this closeness throughout
His life. And it was in this intimacy that Jesus’ sonship is best
defined. Gerald O’Collins has observed:

[Jesus] not only spoke like “the Son” but he also acted like “the Son”
in knowing and revealing truth about God, in changing the divine law, in
forgiving sins, in being the one through whom others could become
children of God, and in acting with total obedience as the agent of
God’s final kingdom (1995, p. 126).

To see through the eyes of faith that Jesus is the Son of God is to see
that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself ” (2
Corinthians 5:19).
Finally, in the Gospel of John, Jesus referred to Himself as the “Son”
Who was “sent” from the Father (John 3:16-17; 5:23; 6:40; 10:36).
Clearly, this is a special claim. On one of those occasions, Jesus based
His authority to heal on the Sabbath on the fact that His Father was
working. This infuriated some of the Jews. John explained: “Therefore
the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the
Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal
with God” (John 5:18).
In summary, to identify Jesus as the Son of God is to acknowledge His
genealogical connection to Israel, His right to the throne of David, and
His unparalleled nearness to God. To confess that Jesus is the Son of God is to declare as true Jesus’ claim: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

Assumptions and the Age of the Earth

[EDITOR’S
NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Dr.
Houts who holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT and serves as
the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.]

Scientific advances continue to confirm the Bible in all areas where
science can be applied. Advances in life science have shown that even
the simplest life is vastly more complicated than anything humans have
ever made, and believing life could somehow “make itself” is more absurd
than believing a space shuttle could do the same (Miller, 2013).
Research related to the human genome has uncovered the incredible
complexity of DNA, and the idea that random mutations followed by
natural selection could somehow turn a single cell into all of the
different forms of life we see around us is being further discredited
each day (Sanford, 2008). In these areas (and others) it is obvious that
true science is the Christian’s friend, and the enemy of religions that use evolution as their foundation.
Because true science continues to discredit the Theory of Evolution,
atheists have been forced to focus discussion on topics where
conclusions are drawn primarily based on the assumptions that are made,
and not on actual science. If an unsuspecting individual can be
convinced to accept atheistic assumptions, they can then often be
convinced that atheism may be true or, at least, that portions of the
Bible may be false.
One example is the subject of “age.” When one examines the subject, it
becomes clear that all dating methods rely on assumptions that may or
may not be correct. Because all dating methods ultimately rely on
assumptions that cannot be empirically proven, the battle is no longer a
scientific one (where the atheist or agnostic would lose), but a battle
to convince individuals (and society) to accept atheistic assumptions
without question. Within groups already dedicated to finding an
atheistic explanation for the Universe and everything in it, the atheist
has the upper hand.

Assumptions Related to Carbon Dating

An excellent example of the importance of assumptions is Carbon-14
dating. In a nutshell, if a person assumes the Bible is false, Carbon-14
dating can be used to “show” the Bible is false. If a person assumes
the Bible is true, then Carbon-14 dating is shown to be consistent with
the biblical account.
More specifically, an atheist will usually assume that the Earth is
billions of years old, and that uniformitarianism has generally
prevailed. Although minor adjustments are allowed, an atheist would also
typically assume that there have been no large scale changes in the
atmospheric ratio of Carbon-14 to carbon (14C/C; currently about one part per trillion) for at least the past several hundred thousand years.
From a Christian perspective, the Bible makes it clear that the Earth
was created a few thousand years ago. In addition, a global flood
occurred within the past 5,000 years. Uncertainties in the distribution
and concentration of Carbon-14 at the end of Creation week, coupled with
the potential for significant (two orders of magnitude) changes in
Carbon-14 concentration caused by removal of carbon from the biosphere
during the Flood, make it impossible to estimate Carbon-14
concentrations in the atmosphere much before a few centuries after the
Flood. Additional uncertainties are added due to changes in the Earth’s
magnetic field, the Sun’s magnetic field, the cosmic ray flux reaching
the Earth’s atmosphere, and other factors which can dramatically affect
Carbon-14 production rates.
To estimate the age of a carbon containing sample, the standard equation C = Co (e-λt) is used, where C is the currently measured Carbon-14 (14C) concentration; Co is the 14C concentration at the time of an organism’s death (assumed); e is the base of natural logarithms (2.71828); λ is 0.6931 divided by the half-life of 14C; and t is time. Solving the equation for time (given the current 14C half-life of 5,730 years), one obtains t = ln(C/Co)/-0.000121, where “t” is the time in years since the source of the carbon in the sample died.
The importance of the assumptions that are used to date a specimen can
be demonstrated as follows. Suppose a carbon containing sample is found
with a Carbon-14 concentration 2% that of today. Using the typical
atheistic assumptions stated above, the age would be calculated as t
= ln(0.02)/-.000121 = 32,330 years. However, if biblically consistent
assumptions are made, a significantly different age would be estimated.
For example, if a reasonable assumption was made concerning potential
effects of the Flood (for instance, that near the time of the Flood Co was 1/30th that of today), then the same measured data would yield an age of t = ln(0.02/0.0333)/-.000121 = 4,210 years.
From the same measured 14C/C ratio, one could either make
atheistic assumptions and obtain a biblically inconsistent date, or make
biblically consistent assumptions and obtain a biblically consistent
date. The same measured data yields a non-biblical date (32,330 years)
if the Bible is presupposed to be wrong (i.e., no Flood and no recent
Creation) and a biblically consistent date (4,210 years) if potential
effects from even a single biblical event are taken into account.
In addition to the Flood, there are numerous other factors that could affect Co
in artifacts created near the time of the Flood. For example, the total
energy in the Earth’s magnetic field has been measured to be decreasing
with time (Humphreys, 1984). The Earth’s magnetic field shields the
Earth from cosmic rays that form Carbon-14 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The stronger the magnetic field, the fewer cosmic rays enter the Earth’s
atmosphere, and the lower the amount of Carbon-14 produced. The
stronger magnetic field of the past could thus cause carbon-dated
objects (using atheistic assumptions) to have a calculated age older
than reality. It is also impossible to determine how much (if any)
Carbon-14 was present in the original Creation, and if Carbon-14 was
present, how it was initially distributed.
From a biblical perspective, the Flood was the most recent physical
event that would have had a significant effect on the ratio of 14C/C.
Consequently, the effect of assumptions on samples created more than a
few centuries after the Flood are greatly reduced. Once the 14C/C
ratio had time to stabilize following the Flood, both biblical models
and atheistic models would use the same assumption for the initial
condition, i.e., that the 14C/C ratio was about the same when the sample was formed as it is today.
Biblical and secular written records generally agree, and when there
are disagreements, an assumption is made as to which source to believe.
For very old objects, some archeological dating methods (including
pottery styles, burial layer, etc.) give biblically inconsistent dates.
However, most of these methods are ultimately calibrated to Carbon-14
dating. If the Carbon-14 dates are wrong (due to incorrect assumptions
applied to the initial 14C/C ratio), then the dating methods
calibrated to those dates will also be wrong. Attempts have also been
made to use tree ring patterns for calibration, but those are also
influenced by assumptions, especially if the potential for sub-annual
tree ring growth following the Flood is taken into account (Miller, 2014).

Assumptions Related to other Radiometric Dating Methods

Assumptions dominate other radiometric dating methods as well. For
example, secular radiometric dating methods assume that radioactive
decay rates have always been constant. In addition, assumptions are made
about the initial concentration of all of the isotopes that are
involved in the dating method, and assumptions are made about the
addition or removal of isotopes throughout the life of the sample. If
any of these assumptions is incorrect, significant errors can be
introduced into the estimated age.
Major anomalies associated with radiometric dating methods can be
resolved by biblically consistent models. For example, Carbon-14 is
found in diamonds and coal purported to be hundreds of millions of years
old. However, Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, meaning ½ of
the atoms decay (in this case beta-decay to Nitrogen-14) every 5,730
years. It was noted by the RATE group that the detectable presence of
Carbon-14 in any sample indicates that its age is less (possibly much
less) than approximately 100,000 years; otherwise, the Carbon-14 would
have decayed below detectable levels (DeYoung, 2005, p. 175; NOTE: RATE
[Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth] refers to an eight year
research project conducted by the Institute for Creation Research). The
presence of Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds strongly contradicts
evolutionary theory, which claims that both coal and diamonds formed
millions of years ago. The “problem” (from an evolutionist’s standpoint)
of Carbon-14 in coal has also been reported by Lowe (1989, 31:117-120),
Giem (2001, 51:6-30), and others. Additional information related to
Carbon-14 dating and anomalies is given in Batten, 2002.
Attempts to resolve the contradiction between measured Carbon-14
concentration and assumed age include postulating potential
contamination of samples, errors with the equipment used to detect
Carbon-14, and in-situ production of Carbon-14 from the decay
of uranium or thorium mixed with the sample. Contamination and equipment
error have been ruled out, and current decay rates are orders of
magnitude lower than those required to make in-situ production a
viable explanation (Jull, 1985, 20:676). However, if radioactive decay
rates were greatly accelerated (by a factor of a billion or more) during
Creation week or the Flood, then additional investigation could be
warranted to determine if in-situ production of Carbon-14 could be a potential explanation for at least some of the Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds.
Other observations made by the RATE group are also consistent with
periods of greatly accelerated radioactive decay during Creation week or
the Flood. One of the findings of the RATE group was excess helium
retention in zircons. This finding indicates that based on measured
helium diffusion rates, the observed radioactive decay in zircons must
have occurred within the past several thousand years. If it had taken
longer, the helium generated via alpha decay would have diffused out of
the zircons. The group’s observation is that significant radioactive
decay has occurred, and it has occurred recently (DeYoung, p. 176).
An additional finding of the RATE group is that ages estimated using
parent isotopes that undergo beta decay tend to be significantly
different (younger) than ages estimated using parent isotopes that
undergo alpha decay. This could suggest that whatever mechanism God used
to change decay rates during Creation week and around the time of the
Flood had a different effect on alpha emitters than it did on beta
emitters (DeYoung, p. 121). The RATE group has also performed research
related to radiohalos, fission tracks in zircons, and potential
mechanisms for alleviating issues (such as high heating rates)
introduced by accelerated radioactive decay (pp. 174-183). Among other
implications, the observations of the RATE group indicate that
assumptions used in radiometric dating may be false, and that ages
estimated through use of radiometric dating may be incorrect by several
orders of magnitude.
In addition to recent research performed by both Christian and secular
scientists alike, other lines of evidence have been known for years that
are consistent with a relatively recent Creation (Humphreys, 2000).
These include the rate at which galaxies “wind up” (too fast for long
ages), the amount of mud on the seafloor (too little), the amount of
sodium in the sea (too little), the rate at which the Earth’s magnetic
field is decaying (too fast), the number of stone age skeletons (too
few), the development of agriculture (too recent), and numerous others.
Biblically based theories also exist for interpreting what we observe in
the Universe, given a relatively recent Creation (e.g., Humphreys,
1994; Thompson,
2004; Faulkner, 2013). Other biblically consistent interpretations have
also been proposed (Williams and Hartnett, 2005, p. 180).

Assumptions Related to the Origin of the Universe

Assumptions related to “age” are not limited to radiometric dating
methods. Perhaps some of the most egregious assumptions are associated
with the “Big Bang” theory, the current attempt to develop an atheistic
explanation for the origin of the Universe.
Serious contradictions between the predictions of the Big Bang theory
and actual astronomical observations have been known for decades. By the
mid-1970s, the evidence against the theory had become so overwhelming
that “explanations” were required. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were
contrived, and initially said to make up 50% of the Universe. That
number has since grown and, at present, a total of 96% of the Universe
needs to be made of dark matter and dark energy in order to preserve the
Big Bang theory.
Christians and non-Christians alike readily acknowledge that dark
matter and dark energy are merely hypothetical entities that, by
definition, cannot be directly observed. For example, former NASA
administrator Mike Griffin once asked the value of “discovering that
literally 95% of the Universe consists of dark energy or dark matter,
terms for things that we as yet know nothing about? But they make up 95%
of our Universe” (Griffin, 2007). He went on to write that someday we
may learn to harness these “new things.” When asked about dark energy,
physicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago quipped: “The only
thing we know about dark energy is its name” (Griffin, 2007).
While dark matter and dark energy have been given specific properties,
those properties were specifically chosen to help resolve serious
problems with the Big Bang. Additionally, dark matter and dark energy
can be distributed throughout the Universe in any fashion desired. When
observations are still contradicted, concepts such as “dark flow” and
“dark light” can be invoked. Other contradictions are resolved by
concepts such as “inflation,” which in themselves are merely conjectures
aimed at resolving other serious problems with the Big Bang.
With this approach, any set of data can be claimed to support any
theory desired. All that is required is the judicious use of “fudge
factors.” Consider this mathematical analogy: one could predecide that
100 must be the answer to the question, “what does X + Y equal?” Values
for “X” could then be sought, and no matter what values for “X” were
found, a value for “Y” could be chosen to obtain the desired answer. In
the analogy, “X” is actual astronomical observations, “100” would be the
desired answer (support for the Big Bang theory), and “Y” is the fudge
factors (dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc.) needed to make the
equation true. The actual astronomical observations
(“X”) become somewhat irrelevant, because no matter what data is taken,
“Y” (the fudge factors) can be chosen to claim the observations support
the Big Bang theory.
Circular reasoning is then invoked to pretend the approach is valid.
For example, in the case of the Big Bang theory, maps showing the
location of dark matter have been developed. In reality, all these maps
show is the specific ways dark matter must be invoked to avoid
contradictions between actual observations and the Big Bang theory.
Christians are not the only ones who have noticed the non-scientific
nature of the Big Bang theory. For example, in the May 22, 2004 issue of
New Scientist, an open letter to the scientific community
appeared written primarily by secular scientists
(cosmologystatement.org). The letter was subsequently signed by hundreds
of other scientists and professors at various institutions. Two
representative paragraphs from the letter are as follows.

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would,
at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the
underlying theory.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions
that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes
claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of
adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles (Lisle, 2008, p. 103, emp.
added).

Although the signers of the letter were not necessarily endorsing
biblically based theories, unlike atheistic theories, biblically based
theories are very consistent with astronomical observations (Faulkner,
2013; Humphreys, 1994).

Adherence to Faulty Assumptions Hinders True Science

Tremendous spiritual damage is done by the promotion of atheism through
the pretense of atheistic theories being scientific. Ironically,
though, the strict adherence to atheistic theories (regardless of
countering evidence) also does tremendous damage to the advancement of
science.
For example, for a secular theory of cosmology to be considered, it
must adhere to atheistic (and non-scientific) tenets such as the
“Copernican Principle,” which essentially states that Earth cannot be at
a special location within the Universe. That principle drives not only
fundamental assumptions behind the Big Bang theory, but the means by
which alternative theories can be seriously pursued.
Consider the August 2009 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science and quoted in the popular press, including USA Today (Vergano, 2009):

Mathematicians have come up with an answer Monday for the mystery of
“dark energy” tearing the universe apart at an accelerating rate. It
ain’t there. Blake Temple and Joel Smoller suggest that “expanding
waves” from the Big Bang “are propelling the trillions of galaxies
filling the universe apart…. Dark energy is an illusion if their
equations are right.” However, “the only problem is that for the
equations to work, we must be ‘literally at the center of the
universe’...” says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University
in Tempe. I think this is plausible mathematics, but it doesn’t seem
physically relevant.

If Earth and its environs are centered in a vast,
billion-light-year-long bubble, relatively free of matter, in turn
surrounded by a massive, dense shell of material, then gravity’s tug
would cause galaxies inside the void to hurtle toward the spherical
concentration of mass, say theorists Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth
College and Albert Stebbins of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
in Batavia, Ill. That process would mimic the action of dark energy—a
local observer would be tricked into thinking that the universe’s
expansion is accelerating (Cowen, 2008).

The article further notes: “But that scenario violates the Copernican
principle, a notion near and dear to the hearts of physicists and
cosmologists, including Caldwell and Stebbins” (Cowen, 2008).
Both models eliminate the need for “Dark Energy,” the fudge factor that
accounts for 73% of the Universe according to the traditional Big Bang
theory. However, neither model has been seriously pursued because both
violate the arbitrary assumption that the Earth cannot be in a special
location (i.e., the “Copernican principle”). Many cosmologists feel a
special location would imply the existence of God.
But what if the Earth is in a special location? The secular models described in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science and Physical Review Letters
actually correspond quite well with the biblically consistent models
proposed by Russ Humphreys and others, especially when the potential
effects of gravitational time dilation are taken into account
(Humphreys, 1994; Thompson, 2004). These models explain how stars that
are billions of light years distant can be seen from an Earth that is
less than 10,000 years old, all based on a straightforward reading of
the Bible.
The assumption that radioactive decay rates have always been constant
may also be hindering scientific progress. For example, scientists have
discovered that changes in radioactive decay rates can be induced. The
June 8, 2009 CERN Courier noted:

It is a common belief that radioactive decay rates are unchanged by
external conditions, despite many examples of small shifts (particularly
involving external pressure and K-capture decays) being well documented
and understood. However, Fabio Cardone of the Institute per lo Studio
dei Materiali Nanostrutturati in Rome and colleagues have shown a
dramatic increase—by a factor of 10,000—in the decay rate of thorium-228
in water as a result of ultrasonic cavitation. Exactly what the physics
is and whether or not this sort of effect can be scaled up into a
technology for nuclear waste treatment remain open issues (Reucroft and
Swain, 2009).

Recent observations also suggest that radioactive decay rates
(typically assumed to be constant) can change due to causes that are not
yet fully understood. For example, in August 2010, a team of scientists
from Purdue and Stanford universities announced that the decay of
radioactive isotopes fluctuates in sync with the rotation of the Sun’s
core. The team has published a series of articles in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, and Space Science Reviews.
Although the measured change in decay rate is small (~0.1%), the fact
that change occurs at all is extremely significant. Team member Jere
Jenkins noted: “[W]hat we’re suggesting is that something that can’t
interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed”
(Gardner, 2010).
When considering the effects of assumptions on the estimated age of the
Earth and Universe, it can also be instructive to look at the effects
of assumptions in other areas related to the debate between atheism and
the Bible. For example, in 2009 Richard Dawkins wrote: “What pseudogenes
are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their
creative ingenuity to make up a reason why an intelligent designer
should have created a pseudogene…unless he was deliberately setting out
to fool us” (Dawkins, 2009, p. 332). What if scientists had believed
Dawkins, and had given up researching “pseudogenes” because those
scientists decided to assume pseudogenes were simply useless
evolutionary leftovers? Fortunately most scientists did not, and by 2012
extensive evidence had been uncovered that pseudogenes have functions
related to encoding proteins and gene expression. There is also sequence
conservation in pseudogenes. In 2012, the ongoing ENCODE project (which
includes 32 laboratories from around the world) simultaneously
published 30 scientific papers detailing new discoveries. Among their
conclusions were that “vast parts of the human genome thought to be
‘junk DNA’ are really filled with millions of cellular ‘switches’
helping choreograph the roles genes play in human life and disease,” and
that nearly all DNA “has some function in cellular creation and growth”
(Roop, 2012). With advancements in true science, the evolutionist’s
argument for assuming “junk DNA” is rapidly fading away, much as their
assumption of “vestigial organs” did in the late 20th century.
Biblically consistent assumptions have been shown superior in other
areas as well. Models based on those assumptions have successfully
predicted the strength and behavior of planetary magnetic fields, where
secular models have failed (Humphreys, 1984). Models that take into
account effects from the global Flood are not only consistent with the
geologic record, but do an excellent job predicting the observed extent
and effects of the ice age including the ice sheets that remain today
(Oard, 2005). The biblical claim that all humans are descendants of one
man and one woman, and that “He made from one man every nation of
mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26, NASB) is
fully supported by modern genetics (Purdom, 2014). The argument that
“science” somehow supports racism (directly or indirectly made by
Darwin, Haeckl, Hitler, et al.) has been thoroughly rebuffed (Houts, 2007).

Conclusion

It is difficult to imagine how the Bible could make it any clearer that
God created the Universe in six literal days a few thousand years ago.
While apparently well meaning attempts have been made to devise
compromise positions, the technical and theological problems with these
attempts are well documented in the literature (e.g., Lyons, 2014; Thompson, 2000; Sarfati, 2004; Miller, 2012; Mortenson, 2005).
First Peter 3:14-15 states: “But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled,
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a
defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that
is in you, yet with gentleness andreverence” (NASB, emp. added).
Christians must not allow themselves to be intimidated by contemporary
human wisdom. While on the surface that “wisdom” can appear convincing,
closer examination has always supported the Bible.
The Bible also warns us not to distort Scripture in order to
accommodate contemporary human wisdom. Second Peter 3:16 states: “as
also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are
some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort,
as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction”
(NASB).
For some it can be hard to understand how the Earth can be a few
thousand years old when they have been told “science” says it is a few
billion years old. Individuals in that situation must resist the
temptation to distort Scripture in order to pretend the Bible is
consistent with that prevailing worldview. Although the distortion may
be done with the best of intentions, its end can be disastrous. Proverbs
14:12 tells us: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end
is the way of death.”
Throughout history, Christianity has been attacked in a variety of
ways. While the attack based on “age” is currently en vogue, it is
becoming easier to rebut given advances in true science. Romans 3:4
remains as true today as it was in the first century: “[L]et God be
found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, ‘that
you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged’”
(NASB).